Forum:Standardised Page Layout
Ok all: we've come to a conflict in viewpoints. With FB100Z's return (not saying it's a bad thing :) ), we need to standardise a layout for the various pages. That means: #Should there be headers within articles such as the different Networkers and Stickers? #Do we need Blueprint images? #What should the layout be for them? #Should we include Networkers' greetings messages? #Should we strip duplicate information already included in the template to the right of the article? #Should we include trivia? #And, dare I say it, include faulty Blueprint names? #And many other points. After discussion and voting, we'll make page templates which users can in and update our MoS, so we get nice orderly pages which are consistent across the Wiki. 20:56, February 8, 2010 (UTC) There should be Trivia. There should be faulty blueprint names. There should be everything...the more the better. There should be sounds for the loops that they sell. There should be duplicate information. There should be added to ever page in the wiki to get rid of table of contents. 21:30, February 8, 2010 (UTC) : is never to be used within articles. When we need page design, it's useful, but we're not designing pages here in the mainspace. If we need to use NOTOC, then some headers need to be removed. 04:12, February 11, 2010 (UTC) #. Not sure. #. I think so, it could be helpful for people to know what the blueprint looks like if they are looking through the blueprint list. #. Do you mean layout for the Blueprint images? #. Well, this is MLN wiki, and I think we are supposed to include everything MLN related, right? #. Yes, if we removed that information, there would be almost nothing left of most articles (Infact, there wouldn't be ANYTHING on most of the sticker pages) #. I think most of the time the information from the Trivia section could be moved to other sections of the article, so probably not. #. What do you mean "faulty Blueprint names"? Pet Ball Lightening Module and Lightning... Anyone want to make a suggestion regarding actual layout? You know I'd be here at some point. I have a really conservative viewpoint on pretty much all of these. # Only for very large articles, to organize information. The article should be possible to read aloud without the headings and make perfect sense. # Depends on the Item/Module/Masterpiece for which it is made. But in the majority, no. # For what? Articles # No. Way too much info in that case. # Depends on the info. # Yes, but not in its own section, as MM11 said. However, we should not include trivia if the only reason for its significance is because we think it's funny, it's cute, it's weird, etc. See history of Dr. Inferno. # Yes. Redirect to the real object's name. The Jeweled Triceratops Masterpiece move fail was not intentional (I'm too used to unchecking the redirect box.) 22:53, February 8, 2010 (UTC) I don't see why you should shorten any articles (except to get rid of Spam). It makes articles empty....many would be less kilobites then Fluffy94's page... 22:55, February 8, 2010 (UTC) :The truth, however, is that the articles are not really being shortened except in the visual sense. (Okay, maybe I did remove some content, but those forms of content are covered above.) All I do is chop off the headings, since they do nothing to organize information and only disrupt the writing flow. Read the second sentence for point 1. 02:25, February 9, 2010 (UTC) I was wondering if perhaps it could be a good idea to merge together the How to Obtain and Required to build sections found on most articles? It seems like they are almost the same thing, and they both talk about how you get the Item/Module/Badge/whatever, and as FB100Z just pointed out in the Shout Box, alot of the sections have almost no complete sentences, and a section merge could make it a bit easier to read? 02:42, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :Here's my view on sections: Chuck the headings. Why organize content when we can only put two or three short sentences containing only statistics in each section? 02:49, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::I am OK with FB's plan, but what needs to happen now I think is downgrading the headers from two to three. A header two should have a paragraph or more, not a sentence. Ajraddatz Talk 02:52, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::Yea, agreed about the paragraph thing, and I also think the header 3s look a little nicer than header 2s alot of the time, but thats just my opinion 02:55, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::Finally, at least a tiny amount of agreement. Downgrading the headers would be an excellent idea. ::::If you're interested in an example of the bloated articles I rant about, see Gypsum. Under each heading is a single bullet item containing only statistics. I compress articles for concision, not "we don't need this info," although the latter case does apply occasionally. 02:58, February 9, 2010 (UTC) ::::Ok, I guess sometimes some headers should be removed. Also, I can't really think of any information that should be completely removed... 03:05, February 9, 2010 (UTC) :::::*cough* 03:07, February 9, 2010 (UTC)